Chullin

Accordingly as the first [animal] was merely killed1 the second is acceptable [as an offering] within, and he [who slaughtered it] should also incur the penalty of Kareth. Moreover, it reads: IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE UNCONSECRATED [AND WERE SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY, BOTH ANIMALS ARE INVALID, AND [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES. Let us consider. We know that according to R. Simeon a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit is no slaughtering. Accordingly the first [animal] was merely killed; why then should [he who slaughtered] the second have incurred forty stripes? Further, it reads: IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE CONSECRATED [AND WERE SLAUGHTERED] INSIDE THE SANCTUARY, THE FIRST IS VALID AND HE [WHO SLAUGHTERED IT IS] NOT CULPABLE, BUT HE WHO SLAUGHTERED THE SECOND INCURS FORTY STRIPES AND IT IS INVALID. Let us consider. We know that according to R. Simeon, a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit is no slaughtering. Now the slaughtering of a consecrated animal is [by itself] a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit, for so long as the blood has not been sprinkled the flesh is not permitted to be eaten. Why is it then that [he who slaughtered] the second has incurred forty stripes? and why is it invalid?2 Indeed you may conclude that it is not in agreement with R. Simeon. Is it not obvious it is so? — It was only necessary [to have said it] on account of the clause dealing with the slaughtering of consecrated animals. For you might have submitted that the slaughtering of a consecrated animal is [by itself] a slaughtering which renders fit, for if one were to stab the animal and sprinkle its blood, the flesh would not thereby be permitted to be eaten, whereas if one were to slaughter it, the flesh would thereby be permitted to be eaten, consequently it is a slaughtering which renders the animal fit. He therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. Should he3 not have incurred stripes also on account of the prohibition of ‘out of time’?4 For it was taught: Whence do we know that [the offering of] a bullock or a sheep that has any disqualifying defect is a transgression of the prohibition of ‘It shall not be accepted’? From the verse: Either a bullock or a lamb that hath anything too long or too short . . . it shall not be accepted,5 implying, that [the offering of] a bullock or a sheep that has a disqualifying defect is a transgression of the prohibition of ‘It shall not be accepted’.6 — He [the Tanna in our Mishnah] only reckons the prohibition of ‘It and its young’, but not other prohibitions. Surely it is not so! For is not the slaughtering of a consecrated animal outside the Sanctuary another prohibition nevertheless he reckons it? For it says. IF BOTH ANIMALS WERE CONSECRATED [AND WERE SLAUGHTERED] OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY, [HE WHO SLAUGHTERED] THE FIRST INCURS THE PENALTY OF KARETH, AND EACH INCURS FORTY STRIPES. The second one, I grant you, on account of the prohibition of ‘It and its young’; but why does the first one incur forty stripes if not on account of the prohibition of slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Sanctuary? — Wherever there is no prohibition of ‘It and its young’ he then reckons other prohibitions, but wherever there is a prohibition of ‘It and its young’ he does not reckon other prohibitions. R. Zera answered: Leave alone the prohibition of ‘Out of time’, for Scripture regarded as a slaughtering but a killing, its young may be slaughtered on the same day; consequently the second consecrated animal was fit for a sacrifice, and he who slaughtered it outside the Sanctuary should indeed have incurred Kareth. ‘too young’, and it is valid for sacrifice, and he who slaughters it most certainly does not incur stripes. slaughters as a sacrifice that which is unfit for a sacrifice incurs the penalty of stripes. V. Tem. 6b.